News / National
High Court outlaws demolition of houses by councils
3 hrs ago | Views
The High Court has issued a significant ruling condemning the widespread practice of demolishing residential properties by local authorities, deeming it unlawful under outdated legislation. In a judgment delivered on October 16, High Court judge Justice Never Katiyo called for the repeal of sections 32 and 37 of the Regional, Town and Country Planning Act, which had been utilized by local authorities, including the Chitungwiza Municipality, to issue demolition orders.
The case stemmed from a demolition order issued by the Chitungwiza Municipality on October 8, 2020. Justice Katiyo declared specific provisions of the Regional, Town and Country Planning Act as ultra vires to section 74 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom from arbitrary eviction. He ruled that the municipal order was invalid, highlighting the need for local authorities to adhere to due process and procedural safeguards established in the Constitution.
Justice Katiyo stated that the provisions in question did not offer a reasonable limitation of the right to freedom from arbitrary eviction, thus failing to comply with constitutional mandates. "Local authorities must follow due process and ensure procedural safeguards are in place to protect residents from arbitrary actions," he asserted.
The ruling was prompted by a challenge from aggrieved residents represented by the Chitungwiza Residents Trust (Chitrest), who sought to contest the municipality's demolition order. Legal representatives Tinashe Chinopfukutwa, Kelvin Kabaya, and Paidamoyo Saurombe from Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights filed an application for the High Court to declare the offending sections of the Act constitutionally invalid.
Respondents in the case included Local Government and Public Works Minister Daniel Garwe, Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi, Attorney-General Virginia Mabhiza, and the Chitungwiza Municipality.
Following this ruling, the Constitutional Court is set to hear the Chitrest application today for confirmation of the order of constitutional invalidity. This case marks a critical step towards safeguarding residents' rights and ensuring that local authorities operate within the bounds of the law when addressing issues related to housing and land use.
The case stemmed from a demolition order issued by the Chitungwiza Municipality on October 8, 2020. Justice Katiyo declared specific provisions of the Regional, Town and Country Planning Act as ultra vires to section 74 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom from arbitrary eviction. He ruled that the municipal order was invalid, highlighting the need for local authorities to adhere to due process and procedural safeguards established in the Constitution.
Justice Katiyo stated that the provisions in question did not offer a reasonable limitation of the right to freedom from arbitrary eviction, thus failing to comply with constitutional mandates. "Local authorities must follow due process and ensure procedural safeguards are in place to protect residents from arbitrary actions," he asserted.
The ruling was prompted by a challenge from aggrieved residents represented by the Chitungwiza Residents Trust (Chitrest), who sought to contest the municipality's demolition order. Legal representatives Tinashe Chinopfukutwa, Kelvin Kabaya, and Paidamoyo Saurombe from Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights filed an application for the High Court to declare the offending sections of the Act constitutionally invalid.
Respondents in the case included Local Government and Public Works Minister Daniel Garwe, Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi, Attorney-General Virginia Mabhiza, and the Chitungwiza Municipality.
Following this ruling, the Constitutional Court is set to hear the Chitrest application today for confirmation of the order of constitutional invalidity. This case marks a critical step towards safeguarding residents' rights and ensuring that local authorities operate within the bounds of the law when addressing issues related to housing and land use.
Source - newsday
